Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4665 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I'm just doing a claim to get my PPI back from Cap1 on the grounds that my employer will cover sick pay etc and I also have a medical condition (arthritis) which might make the agreement void (not sure.) I didn't know I could get the PPI elsewhere either.

 

I'm trying to get as much ammunition as I can. I can remember the Cap1 rep asking me if I wanted PPI over the phone and I said no. I was trying to keep the costs down at the time not knowing I didn't need it anyway because of the reasons I've stated above. However, I've just found the letter I received from them after that conversation which states:

 

When you applied for your Capital One credit card you made a request for PPI. As you have not fully completed the CCA section for this insurance you are not currently covered by PPI.

 

This insurance is offered to help protect your credit card payments in the event of, Accident and Sickness (also referred to as disability), unemployment and loss of life.

 

If your credit card application is successful you will have the opportunity to discuss PPI when you call us to activate your card. We will continue to process your application for a credit card and if you require any assistance please call etc etc. We look forward to welcoming you as a Capital One cardholder soon.

 

Now there was a good reason why I hadn't filled it in because like I have previously stated I told them I didn't want it. Unfortunately, after receiving this letter I started to have doubts and went ahead and agreed to PPI (not realising at the time I didn't need it.)

 

Do you think all of this is worth mentioning in my claim?

 

Also, can someone tell me about the 'loss of life' statement. I thought if you died the debt died as well but might be very wrong.

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

In your claim I wouldn't be going into too much detail at the outset...just put own the facts that you didn't need it, didn't want it, covered elsewhere. Also no needs assessment, suitability questions and no information about getting cover somewhere else.

 

In the evnt of death, it sounds like this policy may have paid the card off.

 

When one dies, the debt doesn't die and creditors are paid out of the estate.

 

Regards

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH:

 

i'd only use the FOS customer complaint form + an SOC

 

nothing else

 

cap1 can be crafty as IMS says

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH:

 

i'd only use the FOS customer complaint form + an SOC

 

nothing else

 

cap1 can be crafty as IMS says

 

dx

 

Hi

 

Yes they can be crafty.

 

I've made my eyes bleed with the amount of reading around the ppi forums and the trends coming to fore at the moment seem to be...

 

Cap1 -> "You bought the ppi on the phone" but no records of these calls appear to be around

 

Lloyds TSB ->Claiming they don't have to keep stuff older than six years. Money Laundering Laws say different.

 

Halifax -> Ignoring SAR requests

 

Their deceptions continue in attempts to frustrate the people they mis-treated in the first place. Nothing new there then !!!!!

 

Regards

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...